America and Israel’s assault on Iran has shaken the Middle East’s political atmosphere to its core. With increasing death tolls on all fronts of the conflict, people across the world can only watch history unfold before them. As the futures of many remain uncertain, others turn to the precedent underlying this conflict to better understand what is to come.
On Feb 28, the United States worked in coordination with Israel to launch a lethal offensive campaign against Iran. Dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” the initiative has already eliminated numerous high-profile members of the Iranian government, including its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Retaliating efforts by the Iranian government have seen hundreds of attacks on neighboring Gulf nations, including Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as well as the deaths of six American servicemen.
In a Truth Social statement following the initial American strikes, President Donald Trump justified his decision to attack, arguing Iran “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
His comments on Iran’s nuclear threat were made in light of the American bombing of Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, 2025.
Global reactions to the sudden conflict have been mixed. In one aisle, allies of the Iranian regime offered their condolences regarding the losses of Khamenei and others, though further actions remain to be seen. In another aisle, Western nations have largely maintained an emphasis on global law, either condemning the U.S. and Israel for their brazen offensive or refusing to cooperate against Iran. In a third aisle, minority nations such as Ukraine and Argentina have received the operation more kindly.
Among Gulf nations, the war’s proximity to the internationally vital oil industry makes any conflict distasteful, though Iran’s strikes on their facilities only alienate Tehran from its neighbors.
Americans’ sentiments on the conflict mirror the global divide. CNN polling immediately following Khamenei’s death revealed approximately 59% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s decision to strike, while 41% do approve. Moreover, 54% of those polled believe Iran will become a greater national threat because of Operation Epic Fury, suggesting a partisan divide in views on the Iran conflict.
Given the volatility of the conflict at hand, predicting what’s in store for Iran seems difficult to say the least. For Americans, the past week’s events only add to the controversies surrounding President Trump. But delving into similar events in modern history may shed light on what is to come.
On March 20, 2003, American and allied personnel invaded Iraq. Leading up to this event, President George Bush had accused the Iraqi regime, helmed by Saddam Hussein, of developing nuclear weapons capable of threatening the American homeland.
Immediately, the Iraqi capital of Baghdad was bombed by American and allied forces, crippling any chance of defense and paving the way to the nation’s surrender within two months of the initial assault. By the invasion’s end, Iraq had been subjugated, its leaders eliminated, and any threat to America silenced.
The Iraq War holds many parallels to the modern Iran conflict. In both cases, American intelligence suggested the targeted nation had developed, if not had the means to, weapons of mass destruction which posed a significant threat to Americans. In both instances, a swift assault on the targeted nation saw its capital shelled and its leadership annihilated. Both times, Article II of the Constitution enforced the President’s abilities as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to attack threatening nations.
Though the invasion of Iraq was swift and decisive, key elements of the Iraq War would only develop after America’s victory.
To start, any trace of the alleged weapons of mass destruction claimed by the Bush Administration was never found, debunking arguments that Iraq posed a serious threat to the American public.
The fallout amongst Iraq’s religious and political factions would also weaken America’s hold on the country, exacerbated by coordinated local efforts to attack U.S. and allied forces in the region. Combined with criminal accusations against occupying American troops and growing public disapproval of the war, the Obama administration was pressured to remove troops from Iraq, effectively ending the war in 2009.
In short, American forces faced few issues in seizing Iraq and defending themselves from public sentiment. But local dissent of western occupation and a lack of reasoning to logically justify an invasion in the first place compromised the integrity of American efforts, bittering public views and bringing an end to the conflict.
Whether further parallels can be drawn to the ongoing Iranian conflict will remain to be seen.
The American government has pinpointed Iran as a source of numerous threats to national security. From terrorist cells to cyber attacks to its nuclear program, Iran’s potential to harm U.S. soil is very real in the eyes of the Trump administration. Ultimately, it is the president’s duty to protect his nation from threats, domestic or foreign.
Whether these justifications may ever materialize remains to be seen, however. As operations continue in the Middle East, however, Americans can only hope their leaders are acting in their best interests.
